So. Whine all you want. I don't feel like wasting my time on you any more.

I'll take that as your way of admitting you you've been had. I'll admit, if you did compose a list of private enterprise accomplishments in space vs. those of NASA, it would be pretty imbalanced. Kind of hard to compete with Moon landings, Mars rovers, Voyagers, Pioneers, Kepler, Cassini, Galileo, New Horizons, etc., etc., etc...

Point out the flaws that I have 'skipped', and I'll answer them. You may want to do so in another thread, though. This one is getting in danger of being derailed.

If you didn't answer them the first time, why would anyone ever think you'd do it the second time? You refuse to do any work whatsoever to come up with arguments that people will read and respond to honestly, yet at the same time you ask others to put in time and effort to argue with you while admitting that their opinions mean "absolutely squat" to you and that you won't take them seriously.

I mean, what the hell?

You have a point, and I did speak somewhat hastily, before. Ultimately, however, whether you are convinced that coercing people is not the best way to get your goals accomplished affects me not at all. That said, I am willing to defend my position to you, if you are willing to look up the points you say I skipped, and post them in another thread. I will address them, point by point. I'm willing to wager you won't, though.

So. Whine all you want. I don't feel like wasting my time on you any more.

I'll take that as your way of admitting you you've been had. I'll admit, if you did compose a list of private enterprise accomplishments in space vs. those of NASA, it would be pretty imbalanced. Kind of hard to compete with Moon landings, Mars rovers, Voyagers, Pioneers, Kepler, Cassini, Galileo, New Horizons, etc., etc., etc...

Yes, it is rather hard to compete with an agency that has all the money (which it stole from you) and is willing to shoot you down if you go up with out permission.

Yes, it is rather hard to compete with an agency that has all the money (which it stole from you) and is willing to shoot you down if you go up with out permission.

Thank you for making my point. So you then concede that taxation results in the collective result of accomplishing significant things which private enterprise cannot accomplish nor chooses to accomplish of its own volition. Once again, we see that there are things which a purely privatized model normally excludes, since the bottom line takes precedence over, say, discovering man's place in the universe, and probing the fundamental nature of the cosmos.

But this example (space exploration) serves to demonstrate a common flaw in a purely privatized model in numerous other aspects as well, the specifics of which are left as an exercise for the astute reader to discern on his own.

You have a point, and I did speak somewhat hastily, before. Ultimately, however, whether you are convinced that coercing people is not the best way to get your goals accomplished affects me not at all. That said, I am willing to defend my position to you, if you are willing to look up the points you say I skipped, and post them in another thread. I will address them, point by point. I'm willing to wager you won't, though.

I'm not making a "Hey mykrul, answer the stuff you ignored the first time" thread, because I really don't feel like all of that effort would be worth it for someone who has a history of ignoring anything contrary to his beliefs, although I find it interesting that you consider government actions to be coercion, but not corporate actions. Hell, at least government coercion is sometimes for the benefit of maintaining an orderly society and making sure your food is safe to eat, whereas the corporate version is about nothing but raw profit for a select few.

You really do come off as a teenager who thinks he knows everything about everything (so why even bother to learn more?) and is really eager to share his ideas - until someone tries to disprove them, at which point he either panics or loses interest entirely.

Quote

Yes, it is rather hard to compete with an agency that has all the money (which it stole from you)

Yeah okay Atlas. Next you can horribly insult everyone who ever suffered under slavery by comparing those heinous abuses to someone taking a cut of your pay to maintain the roads you drive on. Because that's always funny in an incredibly offensive/tone-deaf way.

Yes, it is rather hard to compete with an agency that has all the money (which it stole from you) and is willing to shoot you down if you go up with out permission.

Thank you for making my point. So you then concede that taxation results in the collective result of accomplishing significant things which private enterprise cannot accomplish nor chooses to accomplish of its own volition. Once again, we see that there are things which a purely privatized model normally excludes, since the bottom line takes precedence over, say, discovering man's place in the universe, and probing the fundamental nature of the cosmos.

But this example (space exploration) serves to demonstrate a common flaw in a purely privatized model in numerous other aspects as well, the specifics of which are left as an exercise for the astute reader to discern on his own.

Where in the hell did you get that? You even quoted, word for word what I said! And none of that bullshit is in there.

Yes, it is rather hard to compete with an agency that has all the money (which it stole from you)

Yeah okay Atlas. Next you can horribly insult everyone who ever suffered under slavery by comparing those heinous abuses to someone taking a cut of your pay to maintain the roads you drive on. Because that's always funny in an incredibly offensive/tone-deaf way.

It's an airplane with a rocket that launches from underneath a wing, and it cannot even achieve orbit. Didn't the Air Force do that back in the '50s with the X-15? Compare that airplane, to say, the Voyagers, which have been operating for about 35 years, one of which flew by Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, and is still operating to this day, the furthest man made object ever.

Where in the hell did you get that? You even quoted, word for word what I said! And none of that bullshit is in there.

It is in there. You stated that it's hard to compete with an agency that has all the money due to taxation. You are basically stating that the tax model allows for an organization to exist which can accomplish things which private enterprise cannot. That's what you're saying.

Where in the hell did you get that? You even quoted, word for word what I said! And none of that bullshit is in there.

It is in there. You stated that it's hard to compete with an agency that has all the money due to taxation. You are basically stating that the tax model allows for an organization to exist which can accomplish things which private enterprise cannot. That's what you're saying.

No, I'm saying that broke people can't build rockets, especially when they'd get shot down by the people who stole all the money.

Because if you only paid for the roads that you did drive on, there would be a tollbooth every hundred feet and the entire thing would be enourmously impractical and frustrating? There's a reason people call libertarians selfish and unconcerned for anyone else, and that's because it echoes in your every statement. Who cares about the unemployed as long as I have a job? Who cares about a social safety net as long as I have rich parents? Who cares about health care as long as I don't currently have any health problems? And on, ad infinitum. As a philosophy, as a political ideology, it's self-centered and short-sighted to the point of absurdity. It treats capitalism as some kind of benevolent god that can do no wrong, and when it does do wrong, blame is shifted onto governments, victims, and anyone else standing in the crossfire.

Here, have a quote from Eugene Debs:

"Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked; "Am I my brother's keeper?" That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death."

No, I'm saying that broke people can't build rockets, especially when they'd get shot down by the people who stole all the money.

Who is broke?

You continue to ignore the most important point: They shoot you down.

NASA had a monopoly on space travel, enforced by the Air Force, until very recently. Not to mention ownership, enforced by the army, of all the good launch spots in the US. So, the fact that the money to fund them came from the pockets of the people who might compete is really just icing.

Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death."

All well and good, but I am not your brother's keeper, though you may be. Why are you so generous with other people's money?

Maybe. I'm not so certain about floating launchpads in the Pacific. But you're missing the point as well. That point is there is no financial gain to be had for private enterprise to send out a Voyager spacecraft.

All well and good, but I am not your brother's keeper, though you may be. Why are you so generous with other people's money?

Because the policies you advocate are unquestionably the worst thing you can do for the poor. You'll complain all day about a government taking 15% of your paycheck to feed the poor and a million other tangible public services, but you'll never question the employer who can easily afford to pay you 50% more, but refuses in order that he may have even more profits for himself. This is the history of capitalism from day one. It always works out like that, and yet somehow the kind of coercion that actually benefits you is more objectionable than the kind that makes a rich man richer and does nothing for you. I just don't understand that mentality at all.

Maybe. I'm not so certain about floating launchpads in the Pacific. But you're missing the point as well. That point is there is no financial gain to be had for private enterprise to send out a Voyager spacecraft.

Well, right now, probably not. But you again suppose that people would be wholly focused on monetary goals if not for the benevolent hand of government... in their wallet. That's not true. Lofty scientific goals would still be achievable, because I, for one, am passionate about space exploration, and I know I'm not alone. If I asked - and there's a key word, asked - I know I'd get the money. The things that government has done that come as a public good are not because of the taxation model, but despite it. When you don't have to ask, you can get a lot of things done that people don't like, too.

It always works out like that, and yet somehow the kind of coercion that actually benefits you is more objectionable than the kind that makes a rich man richer and does nothing for you. I just don't understand that mentality at all.

I don't see any coercion in the employer/employee model. Could you point out where it is?

Because the policies you advocate are unquestionably the worst thing you can do for the poor. You'll complain all day about a government taking 15% of your paycheck to feed the poor and a million other tangible public services, but you'll never question the employer who can easily afford to pay you 50% more, but refuses in order that he may have even more profits for himself. This is the history of capitalism from day one. It always works out like that, and yet somehow the kind of coercion that actually benefits you is more objectionable than the kind that makes a rich man richer and does nothing for you. I just don't understand that mentality at all.

Not only that, I've gone back and forth with him how corporations plunder the environment to make their bottom lines black, pushing interminably further out until there will be nothing left. The CEO wants to make as much money as he can in ten years, and he needs to satisfy the shareholders, and after that, well, it just doesn't matter. And this continues inexorably in such a way that the debts we incur with the planet cannot be paid back.

I don't see any coercion in the employer/employee model. Could you point out where it is?

Well, you're basically at their mercy, and doubly so in these cyclical high-unemployment scenarios that seem to be part and parcel of the capitalist experience. Corporate productivity has gone through the roof over the past three years as workers were laid off using the economy as an excuse, and the existing workers made to work even harder. As a result, corporate profits have skyrocketed, while worker wages have actually decreased. These people are working even harder at their jobs, making their employers even more money, and they're getting paychecks that are even smaller. How is that not exploitation?

You have little or no power to negotiate wages and benefits with a multinational corporation worth billions when you're just a regular guy who needs a job. So you have to take what they offer. And if not them, some other company that works the same way.

And then you have all of this anti-tax, anti-workers rights, anti-mimimum wage propaganda floating around, and guess who's responsible for that? The same corporations who are trying to distract the public from the fact that they aren't paying decent wages anymore! Even the dumbest person will realize that his paycheck just doesn't go as far these days, but if you convince them that high taxes are the reason, and you manage to make them forget that taxes have actually been going down for three decades now, he's a lot less likely to start blaming you.

Well, you're basically at their mercy, and doubly so in these cyclical high-unemployment scenarios that seem to be part and parcel of the capitalist experience. Corporate productivity has gone through the roof over the past three years as workers were laid off using the economy as an excuse, and the existing workers made to work even harder. As a result, corporate profits have skyrocketed, while worker wages have actually decreased. These people are working even harder at their jobs, making their employers even more money, and they're getting paychecks that are even smaller. How is that not exploitation?

You're neglecting the facts that 1: we are not operating in a capitalist system. We are currently operating in a Fascist system, by which the government works in cooperation with Corporations, themselves creations of the government, to control the economy. Without the minimum wage, unemployment would go down, probably to 0 involuntary unemployment, which by itself would give the workers more bargaining power.

You have little or no power to negotiate wages and benefits with a multinational corporation worth billions when you're just a regular guy who needs a job. So you have to take what they offer. And if not them, some other company that works the same way.

Unions would further increase worker bargaining power (labor unions, not trade unions, there is a distinct and important difference) to the point where they are roughly equal to the people hiring them. Added to the fact that without the government to shield them, the CEOs would actually be liable for their company's actions, life starts to look a little better, eh?

And then you have all of this anti-tax, anti-workers rights, anti-minimum wage propaganda floating around, and guess who's responsible for that? The same corporations who are trying to distract the public from the fact that they aren't paying decent wages anymore! Even the dumbest person will realize that his paycheck just doesn't go as far these days, but if you convince them that high taxes are the reason, and you manage to make them forget that taxes have actually been going down for three decades now, he's a lot less likely to start blaming you.

Maybe we're seeing different propaganda. 'cause I keep seeing idiots clamoring for more, higher minimum wages, ignoring the fact that this will inevitably increase unemployment, which will increase the drain on public funds, which will increase taxes, and end up with a smaller check at the end of the day.

You're neglecting the facts that 1: we are not operating in a capitalist system. We are currently operating in a Fascist system, by which the government works in cooperation with Corporations, themselves creations of the government, to control the economy. Without the minimum wage, unemployment would go down, probably to 0 involuntary unemployment, which by itself would give the workers more bargaining power.

And this neglects the fact that it's next to impossible to survive on minumum wage as it is. It's telling that we need government intervention just to keep corporations from paying people so little that they can't even survive! If companies were responsible, we wouldn't need a minimum wage in the first place, would we? The system right now sucks, and I'm the last person who'd defend it, but look at how people lived when there were fewer government regulations. All of that stuff was put into place specifically because less regulated capitalism leads to more and more instability and more and more worker abuses. Why would you ever think that eliminating them completely would do anything but embolden the corporations to do whatever they want, when all of recorded history shows that's exactly what they'll do? And what they still do?

You can't blame every corporate abuse on the government because it just starts to sound ridiculous and completely ignorant of history.

Quote

Unions would further increase worker bargaining power (labor unions, not trade unions, there is a distinct and important difference) to the point where they are roughly equal to the people hiring them. Added to the fact that without the government to shield them, the CEOs would actually be liable for their company's actions, life starts to look a little better, eh?

We went over this in the AnCapistan thread and you've still failed to give any kind of an answer - if the corporations aren't responsible to anyone, how is a completely powerless government or some private enterprise with no incentive to do so going to arrest a CEO? Without a government, they are by far the most powerful force in society and could afford private armies and all of that good stuff. I keep asking, but I keep getting no answer: who's going to stop them?

These companies also have a depressingly long and mostly consequence-free history of firing, threatening, and even killing people who try to start unions.